Posts Tagged With: Acts

We come now to three books that are typically called the Pastoral Epistles — 1 and 2 Timothy and Titus — because they are addressed to two men who were leading churches Paul had started and because of the attention given in these letters to ministry issues.

Paul wrote the Pastoral Epistles toward the end of his life. As we read through the letters we will likely get the sense that these are the letters of a man who is about to hand his life’s work over to his protégés. He is reflective and slightly anxious. He pours every ounce of cautionary wisdom into his words. Paul wants to push westward past Rome and on to Spain, however Paul seems to know with prescience that he may not even get that far. Either way, it is time to entrust his work in Ephesus to Timothy and his work on the island of Crete to Titus. By the time 2 Timothy, Paul’s last preserved letter, is being written Paul is, in fact, imprisonment in Rome in a cold dungeon (2 Tim. 4:13) unable to be visited by friends. Tradition says Paul is killed by the Romans within a year.

The Pastoral Epistles are highly instructive. So much of these letters rotation around instructions about what makes a good leader, the threat of false teaching, the corruption that can easily come to church leaders when money is involved, and how to live as Christians in a decadent and immoral culture (idolatry in Ephesus, and sexual immorality and raucousness in Crete).

This Timothy was the same young Jewish man mentioned in Acts 16 who became Paul’s traveling companion and “son in the faith” (1 Tim. 1:2). Six of Paul’s letters were co-authored by Timothy (2 Corinthians, Philippians, Colossians, 1 & 2 Thessalonians, and Philemon). Titus is never mentioned in Acts, yet he does show up in various other places in the Letters as a loyal companion to Paul. He evidently was an uncircumcised Gentile who Paul proudly took with him to the council in Jerusalem (Acts 15) to support his stand against attaching law observance to faith in Jesus (Gal. 2:1-3). Titus was especially important to Paul in Crete and he is left there to ensure the churches stayed strong.

Another characteristic trait of Luke’s Gospel is his emphasis on the Holy Spirit. Of course, we see this most clearly in Acts, volume two of the set, but there have been several time already where mention of the Holy Spirit has been made when it was not in Matthew or Mark.

The adult John was clearly a prophet, one who spoke necessary words even if they were confrontational, even if they would get him killed one day. (I noticed today that verses 4-6 were first spoken by Isaiah, who tradition says was sawn in two; then John the Baptist, who was beheaded; then Martin Luther King Jr. in his “I have a dream” speech, who was assassinated. People don’t usually like prophets.) John came preaching of repentance and forgiveness of sins and offered a water baptism that brought this to one’s life. Yet he also says Jesus will do more than simply offer repentance and baptism for forgiveness.

To all of them John responded: “I am baptizing you with water. But someone is coming who is stronger than I am. I don’t deserve to untie his sandal-strap. He will baptize you with the holy spirit and with fire.” (3:16)

The thing that was new with Jesus was not baptism, it was the gift of the Holy Spirit offered to all who would follow him and come into Christ through Christian baptism. Baptism was the ritual; the Holy Spirit was the power and the result. Even forgiveness was available through John’s baptism; it was the Spirit that was missing. Remember Acts 19 (also written by Luke) where this was precisely the issue with a group of people baptized by John but who were missing the Holy Spirit? To punctuate the point, in this chapter Luke includes Jesus’ own baptism in which the Holy Spirit comes upon him.

A life with forgiveness is wonderful, but we are destined to end right back where we were before. We would be a people obsessed with forgiveness because of our permanent fallen state. What we need is empowerment to become something better than what we presently are. That is the importance of the gift of the Holy Spirit. God not only forgives us, He empowers us by that Spirit to live a life that is progressively more holy and capable than it was before.

I wonder if sometimes we are guilty of still only preaching “a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins” (3:3). We emphasize the need to be washed clean of sin. We encourage each other to turn from sin. And, yes, we become obsessed with forgiveness because we have missed the part that we can actually become something different than an incapable sinner. Acts 2:38, a verse ultra-familiar to many of us here, says:

Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

Have we forgotten about the last part? And if so, are we missing the most important part? Are we missing the one unique characteristic of Jesus’ baptism, the one part that is essential to becoming God’s people in a fallen world, the Holy Spirit?

Though he never identifies himself in the book, the author of this gospel is almost universally acknowledged to be Luke, the “doctor” (Col. 4:14) and “fellow worker” with Paul (Phlm 24) mentioned in Acts in several places. This sure identification comes from the tight connection between the Gospel of Luke and Acts, both of which are addressed to “most excellent Theophilus” in what is clearly a two-volume set. Because the author of Acts identifies himself in the “we passages” of Acts as one of Paul’s companions on his second missionary journey, there is confidence this is Luke.

Who was Theophilus? The name simply means “lover of God,” so some have posited that this was only a general title for any Christians who would read this book. However, the title “most excellent” suggests this was a specific person and an esteemed one. The dedications at the beginning of Luke and Acts were common in Roman literature as a way to honor the patron and publisher of a work. Thus, Theophilus would not only have been learning from this gospel himself, but also been responsible for duplicating it and spreading it around. The introduction of Luke makes it obvious this is an apologetic:

So, most excellent Theophilus, since I had traced the course of all of it scrupulously from the start, I thought it a good idea to write an orderly account for you, so that you may have secure knowledge about the matters in which you have been instructed. (1:3-4)

Anyone who has read the gospels know that there is much overlap in the books (53% of the book of Mark is in Luke in some form), yet there is always something unique about each. Those unique qualities give us a window into why they were written. The Gospel of Luke is by far the most Gentile gospel of the four. With his Greek name, Luke was likely a Gentile and one associated with Paul’s later work in Achaia and beyond. His gospel was largely written in the most formal, educated Greek style and has a marked order and structure. It is also the most exhaustive, moving from an extensive birth narrative to his ascension. Theophilus is also a Greek name, so he too was likely from the culturally Greek or Roman parts of the Empire.

Luke’s most characteristic trait is the book’s attention to the typically marginalized of the Roman culture. Women are more important in this gospel than the others. The poor are given focus and dignity. Sinners are included in Jesus’ circles more intentionally. Gentiles show up often in Luke, no surprise given the book’s supposed audience.

In these dog days on July, it will be good to walk the dusty roads of Galilee and Judea as we head to Jerusalem with the one who “came to seek and save the lost” (19:10).

Luke has been following Paul’s judicial proceedings for many chapters, often with tremendous detail. Why do we just end with Paul in house arrest for two years in Rome awaiting trial? We need more closure than that. Was Paul exonerated? Did Jews show up from Jerusalem to plead their side of the case and did it go south for Paul? Was Paul released and freed to go to Spain to preach the gospel as he so desired? Was Paul killed in Rome for some charge brought against him successfully? We are simply left to wonder.

Scholars have taken up the question and posited many a theory. Here are a few:

Acts was intended by Luke to be a legal defense for Paul before the Roman court, thus it had to be completed without these answers.

Things did not turn out well for Paul and it didn’t fit the kind of ending Luke wanted to have so he left these details out.

Luke was forced by sickness, jail, or traveling to finish his account abruptly. Maybe a protegé of Luke finalized the letter quickly after Luke’s unexpected death.

Acts starts with the word “first” (1:1), so maybe Acts was the first volume of two or more intended books about the gospel and the early apostles, but we do not have the later volume(s) or it/they were never written.

The favorite theory amongst conservative scholars (and the one I like) is that Acts does end in the most appropriate way theologically, even if not historically. Paul is not the focus of Luke’s book, the gospel is. Luke starts in 1:8 with a charge from Jesus to take the gospel from Jerusalem, to Judea and Samaria, to the “very ends of the earth,” a place like Rome. Thus, Acts ends with the gospel being preached in Rome with great freedom and acceptance, especially amongst the Gentiles. Luke would have felt like this was a very fitting ending, so the argument goes.

This is now the second book in a row where we come to an abrupt, seemingly incomplete ending. We saw the same thing at the end of Mark. We saw there that Mark seemed to be leaving the reader with the question, “What will you do with Jesus?” Let’s take that same approach here in Acts, just to experiment again.

Maybe Luke wants to leave us with these questions: “What will you do with Paul? What will you do with a gospel that is open to all? What will you do with a church that includes Jews but also Gentiles who are much more receptive to the Gospel?”

Back then, some would have said Paul is a heretic who has hijacked this restored Judaism and perverted into an ecumenical, watered-down movement of grace and acceptance to all. Some would have said Paul has got it exactly right; come join a “new Israel,” no longer defined by race. Some would be quick to write off the Jews because they had their chance. Some would like to muzzle Paul or even kill him.

Interestingly, people say the same things about Paul and other more modern religious thinkers today who say similar things, don’t they? Give me Jesus, but you can keep your Paul.

The question for us, though, as we end this great book of Acts is the same question Caesar will have to answer: “What should I do with Paul?”

One, Luke is writing good literature. We are coming down to the end of the book. We have a goal we know the main character has — to get to Rome — but further, seemingly insurmountable complications come. Luke knows how to push us along in the book!

Two, Luke is writing convincing history. Scholars who study the book of Acts marvel at how historically accurate and detailed this chapter is. This chapter is one of the best accounts of ancient nautical practices in all ancient literature. This is not the kind of chapter an author makes up. This was written by a smart researcher and eyewitness, as we know from the “we” in the first verse.

Three, Luke is ultimately writing theology. It is not entirely correct to call Acts an historical account. It is too theological to be pure history in genre (that is no denial of the factual nature of Acts). Acts is selective history written for a specific theological point. I was struck by how even this account of a shipwreck became a way for Paul to preach the gospel and also a great test of faith:

“So take heart my friends. I believe God, that it will be as he said to me.” (27:25)

“If these men don’t stay in the ship,” he said, “there is no chance of safety.” (27:31)

I have to admit I don’t think of Jesus saying much more to Paul on the road to Damascus than verse 15. I have missed the great richness in verses 16-18 of this third version of Paul’s conversion in the book of Acts. I was especially drawn this time to the first part of verse 18:

I will rescue you . . . so that you can open their eyes to enable them to turn from darkness to light. (26:18a)

Remember the context of this original story. Jesus was saying this to a blinded Paul, a Paul who was experiencing nothing but darkness.

I imagine if I were Paul I would have been saying, “Open my eyes! Help me to turn from darkness to light!”

Maybe that was the point of God’s choice to blind Paul.

Drawing on the work of Carl Jung, the now-passed Roman Catholic priest and scholar Henri Nouwen once wrote a great little book called “The Wounded Healer.” His main premise is that just as we see over and over again in the Scriptures, God usually chooses to use “wounded,” broken people to become the “healers” of others. Nouwen even argues that one cannot adequately do the work of a healer until we face, accept and even embrace our own woundedness. Then, just like Jesus who allowed himself to be emptied of glory and wounded on a criminal’s cross, we are really prepared for God’s work.

I have offended neither against the Jews, nor against the Temple, nor against Caesar. . . . I am standing before Caesar’s tribunal, which is where I ought to be tried. I have done no wrong to the Jews, as you well know. If I have committed any wrong, or if I have done something which means I deserve to die, I’m not trying to escape death. But if I have none of the things they are accusing me of, nobody can hand me over to them. I appeal to Caesar. (25:8, 10-11)

Paul is willing to stand trial where he should stand trial. He is even willing to pay the just price for what he has done, though they will find out that he has done nothing wrong against anyone and shouldn’t be punished at all. He will jump through whatever hoop they put in front of him, wait in jail as long as it takes, even appeal to Caesar and be shipped off to Rome, just so long as he gets justice.

But injustice Paul cannot abide. Be framed on trumped-up charges without a fair trial? No way! Allow the Jews to spout slanderous half-truths without a response? Not for a minute! Be turned over to the bloodthirsty Jews because of some back room deal? Paul will not stand for that. That would simply be unjust.

Paul wants one thing: justice.

Following Jesus doesn’t mean we have to just lay down and take it. Yes, the way of Christ is the path of self-denial and sacrifice, but justice does not have to be ignored in the process. Meekness is most certainly a virtue (Matthew 5:5), but that does not mean a person has to offer themselves to any malevolent soul that wishes to do them harm. One can be humble and sacrificial while also upholding and pursuing justice. We are not called to let injustice proliferate in an already unjust world. Even Jesus didn’t die because of injustice. He died to uphold the justice of a God whose holiness had to be honored.

Like Paul, we can humbly serve a world that is not always hospitable. We can put ourselves in places of discomfort and risk. But we can do all of this while insisting that justice be done by those whose job it is to ensure it.

What struck you today?

Paul is confronted by Felix, the Roman governor in Caesarea. Is Paul truly the rabble-rouser the Jews make him out to be? That is a serious charge in peaceful Rome. In response, Paul confesses the following:

It is true that I do worship the God of my ancestors according to the Way which they call a “sect.” I believe everything which is written in the law and the prophets, and I hold to the hope in God, for which they also long, that there will be a resurrection of the righteous and the unrighteous. (24:14-15)

What strikes me here (and in almost every other public address either Peter or Paul gave in Acts) is that resurrection is so foundational to the belief-system of the apostles. Key to the gospel is resurrection from the dead. This is mentioned again later in the chapter at 24:21.

I wonder if resurrection is that fundamental to our ways of thinking and talking today. I more often hear forgiveness from the guilt of sin mentioned in our gospel language. That is okay. Of course, forgiveness is important as well, and it was a part of the gospel sermons in Acts too (c.f., Acts 2:38). But not as often as resurrection. If we have downplayed resurrection in favor of forgiveness of guilt from sins, what are we missing? And why have we made this switch? What does this reveal about us?

Paul is a wanted man. Leave him alone in Jerusalem for 15 minutes and he is dead. He is sitting in a Roman jail under suspicions of disturbing the peace. Rome deals swiftly and decisively with people who upset the Pax Romana. In Felix, he is talking to a man who more so wants a bribe than the truth, and Paul has no intentions of paying up. He is headed to Rome, where Caesar’s word is truth, and Caesar has no reason to preserve Paul’s life.

How can Paul maintain such boldness and calm? Paul has already told us:

I hold to the hope in God . . . that there will be a resurrection of the righteous and the unrighteous. (24:15)

What do you think about this?

Seemingly insignificant things can end up making a world of difference when God is concerned.

Paul is born in Tarsus in Cilicia making him a Roman citizen. He is born a Jew, and it clear from today’s passage that it is this Jewish heritage that mattered most to Paul’s family. These were Pharisees, apparently a long line of them (23:6). Paul’s father will go to the expense and trouble to get him to Jerusalem to train under Gamaliel the Pharisee (22:3). This is a good education. By all of his own accounts scattered throughout Acts and his letters, it is this Jewish background that Paul gloried in.

And yet in today’s reading it is Paul’s Roman citizenship that makes all the difference between life and death. The Jews are ready to tear him “in pieces” (23:10). A gang of Jewish extremists have pledged not to eat or drink until they kill Paul (23:12). An assassination plot is hatched (23:15). But leave it to the Jews and Paul is as good as dead.

Ancient Roman Citizenship Diploma

It is because of his Roman citizenship that the Roman tribune is involved at this point. The tribune’s greatest desire is simply to preserve peace, but he ends up protecting Paul nonetheless. The tribune’s palace guard whisks Paul out of the fomenting Sanhedrin. The Roman respect for law ensures Paul a fair trial. An army of two hundred foot soldiers and seventy horsemen escort Paul out of Jerusalem and off to a Caesarean prison, and safety as well. Ultimately, it is Paul’s Roman citizenship that will bring him to Rome so he can give his “testimony about [Jesus] in . . . Rome” (23:11). Bottomline:

When I [the tribune] learned that he was a Roman citizen I went with the guard and rescued him. (23:27)

Where one is born is not nearly as important as what one does once one is born. And yet Paul’s place of birth is what rescues him at this moment.

What seemingly insignificant detail from your life has turned out to have made a world of difference?

Have a blessed Ash Wednesday!

†

Christians are called to live in this world, yet not become a part of the world. That is a hard balancing act.

Twice in today’s reading, we see Paul tell people he is, or at least once was, just like them (22:3-5, 19-20, 25).

Paul disputing with Jews and Greeks (mid-12th century)

A murderous mob of Jews has descended on Paul at the Temple in Jerusalem. Some have heard he has defiled their sacred space with a unclean Gentile. Others just hate this traitor and want to see him gone. Either way they are ready to rip him limb from limb. Had it not been for the intervention of the low-level Roman tribune, they would have had their way. Paul uses the opportunity to address his accusers. The gist of his remarks are that he once was just like them. A Jew. A well-trained one. A law-respecting one. He too once persecuted Christians. He gets where they are coming from. He once was just like them.

As the chapter continues, the tribune himself orders that Paul be flogged so as to expedite his interrogations. Paul is quick to assert is rights. He is a Roman citizen from birth. He is entitled to a trial. Again, though, we see Paul saying essentially, “I am just like you.”

And yet now Paul is different. He has discovered there is something more important to God than law. He has learned that the Messiah has come in the form of Jesus. He is a Roman, but his ultimate allegiance is to a different Lord than Caesar.

I once was just like you. Now you can become one like me.

Some will like that message because it brings hope and purpose. For other it will only be scandalous and the heat will be turned up.

What struck you anew in this chapter?

Is anyone else struck by how much the account of Peter’s and now Paul’s life in Acts parallels Jesus’ life?

For instance, just in today’s reading alone, we are approaching the end of Acts and Paul is in the Temple doing an act of “purification.” Unbelieving Jews have charges trumped-up against him. A mob demands that Paul be killed. Yesterday we saw Paul in a “Gethsemane moment” of solitude and a “last supper” with dear disciples in Ephesus. Next, we will see a series of Jewish and Romans trials that are anything but conclusive. I have never noticed this parallelism before.

Maybe the point is that Jesus’ followers will be exactly that: followers. They will share the experiences of Jesus.

Have you noticed this? In what details?

I would love to go to Jerusalem. What a great trip that would be! Maybe some day.

Interestingly, in this passage Paul isn’t as enthusiastic about his trip to Jerusalem. Nor was Jesus in Luke’s first volume (Luke 9:51). Both had to set their faces resolutely towards the city of David. Jerusalem meant death. Jerusalem is the place of loss and separation, in this context.

This is likely why Paul seems more melancholy and introspective in today’s reading. By the middle of the chapter Paul is in Troas on his way to Ephesus on his way to Jerusalem. The rest of his party sails from Troas to Assos but Paul, who usually surrounded himself with traveling companions, walks the 25-mile journey to Assos alone instead. In Ephesus, Paul gathers the elders of the church together to encourage them to watch out for “fierce wolves” in sheep’s clothing and to stay strong in Christ (20:29-31). Paul knows he is “bound by the spirit” to go to Jerusalem (20:22). Twice he tells the Ephesian elders they will not “see my face again” (20:25, 38). Paul’s phrase “after I am gone” (20:29) has a foreboding tone of finality.

These are last words. The kind of things Jesus said to his apostles in John 13-17 just before he died. The kind of things you say just before “going to Jerusalem.”

Yet, both Jesus and Paul went. It was their mission, and they knew it.

So the word grew and was strong, in accordance with the Lord’s power. (19:20)

Paul walks into Ephesus with incredible power. Disease and evil spirits flee from Paul whose very skin exudes power (19:20). An evil spirit, “too strong” and “overpowering” for the seven sons of Sceva, the Jewish high priest, submissively acknowledges Paul’s power through Jesus (19:15-16). The name of Jesus grows in “prestige” and “power” in Ephesus (19:17, 20).

This emphasis on power is no accident. This is Ephesus, after all. Power was everything in Ephesus.

Ephesus was the most important city in Asia Minor at the time. Though the city was a part of the Roman Empire, they had been granted the right of self-government so long as they maintained the rule of law and a general state of peace in the city (read that into the end of the chapter). All roads converged in Ephesus, making it a center of commerce. They had a major stadium and theatre. Most every street had a major temple to some pagan god or the Caesars. Ephesus was the home to the temple of the fertility goddess Artemis, one of the seven wonders of the ancient world. Altogether, Ephesus had the power of empire, trade, law, culture, and the womb. This was an ancient New York, London, or Toronto. Power in every kind, everywhere you went.

But now, with the gospel’s arrival with Paul, there was a new power in town.

What did you notice today?

Everybody’s working for the weekend/everybody wants a little romance/everbody’s goin’ off the deep end/everybody needs a second chance.

Remember those lyrics from the ’80s Canadian rock group Loverboy? Are we going through the week working for the weekend?

Actually, I think Paul was, at least when he was in Corinth.

Paul comes to Corinth and meets up with Aquila and Priscilla, two tentmakers from Rome. Paul quickly takes up with them because this is his trade too. Paul spends eighteen months in Corinth (18:11) and it appears he supported himself (along with some support from the Thessalonians) during that time making tents.

Then on “every sabbath” Paul would go to the synagogue to share with “great energy” the gospel that “the messiah really was Jesus” (18:4-5). Paul strikes me as the kind of person who is always talking about Jesus no matter where he is, but it seems that for the better part of a year and a half Paul did most of his ministry on the weekend. Paul did the best he could and he worked hard at ministry with the time he had.

What struck me today is that Paul didn’t feel bad about the tent-making work he had to do the other six days in order to make his sabbath ministry possible. Maybe sometimes we feel like our jobs take away from the time we could spend doing ministry in a world that needs Jesus. Interestingly, Paul himself didn’t feel that way.

In 2 Corinthians 11:7-9, a snippet from a letter written to the very church we are reading about in this section, Paul talks about how his tent-making work was part of his mission, not separate from it. It didn’t subtract from his ministry, it enabled it. Therefore, he was working as hard for the Kingdom each day when he made tents as he did on the Sabbaths sharing the gospel.

This might give us an even greater appreciation for the work God has blessed us with, regardless of occupation.

What an incredible thing to have people say about you, especially as Christians, especially knowing that upside down is really right side up! What do such people talk about along their revolutionary way?

They’re saying that there is another king, Jesus! (17:7)

The kingship of Jesus was foundational to the message of the gospel from its beginning. If you want to shake up a society, preach that Jesus is King.

This was Philippi, the main city in a highly patriotic Greco-Roman colony. Many of the residents in Macedonia were former members of the military. The city Philippi and the region Macedonia were named after Philip of Macedon, the father of Greek conqueror Alexander the Great. There is only one king in this city: Caesar. He is Lord and King, and to suggest otherwise is seditious.

Later in this chapter we see the same thing happening in Athens. Paul walks into this thoroughly, conscientiously idolatrous city and says to the Athenians: your religiosity is “ignorance” (17:23). There is an invisible God over all of these idols, from whom all life comes. This God had even conquered death through a man named Jesus (17:31). The intelligentsia of Athens heard this message and called it “ridiculous” (17:32).

I am not sure we have perfect equivalents to this. Maybe it is like walking into the Republican Convention with a “Jesus for President” sign. Better yet, it is like Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury, on the day of Prince William’s coronation turning crown in hand to the front altar of Westminster Abbey and saying Jesus is the only real king. It is telling Bill Gates that Jesus is the real CEO of this company. It is telling Stephen Hawking, because of our King Jesus whom he rejects, we understand truth better than he. It is telling the licentious celebrity culture of Hollywood and the materialistic advertisers of Madison Avenue that we can find greater fulfillment in a man named Jesus. Seditious, ridiculous.

Actually, much more personally, it is like saying to our own hearts “there is another king, Jesus. You won’t get your own way. Your agendas and orders are not the final word here. There is a better answer than following your own desires. You are not the center of the universe.

What stood out to you in this chapter?

Happy Valentine’s Day

♥

I have always been drawn to the following passage:

They went through the region of Phrygia and Galatia, since the holy spirit had forbidden them to speak the word in the province of Asia. When they came to Mysia, they tried to go into Bithynia, but the spirit of Jesus didn’t allow them to do so. . . . Then a vision appeared to Paul in the night . . . When he saw the vision, at once we set about finding a way across to Macedonia, concluding that God had called us to preach the good news to them. (16:6-10)

I am convinced spiritual discernment is a huge topic I have neglected. I think that is because I come to passages like this one and I leave confused. I just can’t see my way forward into the topic.

How do we know the will of the Spirit? How did Paul know the Spirit had forbidden them from going into Asia and Bithynia? Was it that sixth-sense “knowing” that many of us feel at times, or was it something more? Was this knowledge from a prophecy he had received? The Macedonian Call came through a vision; was that how he discerned the stops on his journey? Then we come to the word “concluding” in verse 10 and it seems some level of reason and deliberation was involved, but to what degree?

Some are sure that every whim and fancy is a message from God. Others say God gave us a brain and expects us to use it, and the implication often is to use it to the exclusion of all other options. I am convinced the way forward is somewhere between these extremes, as we see in this passage. I would like to learn and experience more on this topic.

Now, that’s a loaded question! And not one I am about to try to answer here. But it is the question the Christians in Antioch were asking.

Grace through faith in Jesus? Definitely!

He [God] purified their [Gentiles] hearts through faith. . . . It is by the grace of the Lord Jesus that we shall be saved, just like them. (15:9, 11)

But is there more? At least some of the early Christians thought so:

“They must be circumcised,” they [believers from the party of the Pharisees] said, “and you must tell them to keep the law of Moses.” (15:5)

Much like Acts 2, Acts 15 is one of the more significant chapters in the book. There is so much to say about this chapter. The chapter also produces so many further questions. Some of these observations and questions would be:

When an argument ensued, they gathered together to talk it out.

The Scriptures played a important role in their decision-making (15:15-18), but so did the everyday ministry experiences of the apostles involved (15:12).

Early Christianity was diverse enough to encompass former Pharisees and former prostitutes, Zealots and tax collectors, those with a great level of obedience to the Jewish customs and those who thought those customs were largely irrelevant.

Even after the decision was made to disagree with the Pharisaical Christians, the apostles and elders still accept them as “some of our number” (15:24).

This conflict ends with feelings of “delight,” “encouragement,” and “peace” (15:31-33).

How did the apostles and elders making the decision know what “seemed good to the Holy Spirit” (15:28)?

Why was blood in food deemed that much more important than circumcision or the Sabbath?

This decision was given to Christians in Antioch, Syria and Cilicia. Was it also intended to apply to other churches too? For instance, Paul didn’t make a big deal over food sacrificed to idols in Corinth.

Is baptism equivalent to circumcision? Do the principles here regarding circumcision apply to modern debates over baptism?

What modern issues of debate would be in line with the topic of law observance? Worship styles, gender roles, marital history, sexual preference?

However, I don’t want us to miss the big point in this chapter, so important that Luke says it twice:

Therefore this is my judgment: we should not cause extra difficulties for those of the Gentiles who have turned to God. (15:19)

For it seemed good to the holy spirit and to us not to lay any burden on you beyond the following necessary things. (15:28)

This did not mean there were no boundaries or requirements. The Gentiles in Antioch were expected to avoid food associated with pagan idolatry, food that would still have a good amount of blood in it, and sexual perversions (15:20, 29). Still, the apostles and elders decided to go the path of least resistance. They endeavored to place as few barriers as possible between God and those Gentiles seeking Him. Important to any debate Christians might have today regarding what it takes to be saved should be this same principle: don’t make it any more difficult than it has to be.

They [Paul and Barnabas] warned them [the disciples in Galatia] that getting into God’s kingdom would mean going through considerable suffering. (14:22)

It sure will. It seems everywhere Paul went on this trip he was either chased out of town or beaten half to death. In no time at all the crowd in Lystra goes from wanting to offer sacrifices to Paul and Barnabas to wanting to kill them. They went from being the object of sacrifice to the sacrifices themselves. God’s mission necessitates sacrifice.

I am struck, though, how Paul and Barnabas go back through the cities where they are persons non gratis to reinforce the core message of the Kingdom to the new converts (14:21-23), and part of that core message is that disciples have to be ready to sacrifice. Dietrich Bonhoeffer called this the “cost of discipleship,” not always something we hear a lot about in some Christian circles these days. But how can we share with any credibility the story of a suffering Savior if we are not willing to suffer ourselves?

When was the last time you saw the Kingdom advance by suffering or sacrifice?

As Paul and Barnabas were leaving, they [Jews in the synagogue] begged them to come back the next sabbath and tell them more about these things. Many of the Jews and devout proselytes followed them once the synagogue was dismissed. They spoke to them some more, and urged them to remain in God’s grace.

On the next sabbath, almost the whole city came together to hear the word of the Lord. But when the Jews saw the crowds, they were filled with righteous indignation, and spoke blasphemous words against what Paul was saying. (13:42-45)

At first, when Paul and Barnabas were in a synagogue, the Jews were interested and wanted to hear more. Less than a week later when the whole city — Jew and Gentile — shows up to hear Paul and Barnabas, the Jews who were rather receptive turn on them in anger and have them driven out of the city.

Why such a strong change?

I am wondering if the answer isn’t at the beginning of verse 45: “But when the Jews saw the crowds.” Now, when they were out in the city streets, in neutral or even foreign territory, in mixed company, when Gentiles are included in the audience being encouraged to turn to God, things change. They don’t like what Paul is preaching. More to the point, they don’t like who Paul is preaching to. God is our god, they thought. This party is by invitation-only. No Gentiles allowed. The Gentile water-fountain is around the corner.

Why the change? Well, it wasn’t because of doctrine or theology. As Paul points out in 13:47, they were arguing with their own prophet Isaiah, not him:

“I have set you for a light to the nations, so that you can be salvation-bringers to the end of the earth.”

Jewish election was not an end unto itself. God didn’t just want the Jews to receive divine light then keep it to themselves. The election of Israel was a means to an end. They were given light in order to shine it on the whole world. Blessed to bless. As far back as the calling of Abraham in Genesis 12, the Gentiles were in God’s sights.

So it seems to me that the Jews in Pisidian Antioch (and so many other places) were actually reacting from emotion rather than theology. Socially driven prejudice, not the Scriptures, flavored their decisions about what they thought God should and should not do.

What do you think?

I have never noticed before today how similar this account of the near-death and rescue of Peter is to the death and resurrection of Jesus.

Both face one of the Herods

Both are arrested around the time of the Passover

The arrest of each is preceded by the killing of a previously popular leader: John the Baptist and James

Both Herods are motivated by placating the Jewish people

Jesus hung between two criminals, while Peter was chained between two soldiers

Jesus escaped the tomb; Peter escaped a prison and iron city gate

Once freed, both go to a “Mary” first

The reunion with friends is incomplete in both accounts: people run off to tell others, and Jesus and Peter both tell someone to tell significant disciples about their return

The guards in both accounts are put to death for their perceived negligence

The interesting point is that while both stories are so similar, the fate of each was quite differently: Jesus died but Peter was spared.

Nonetheless, God’s will is done in each story. It was God’s will for Jesus to die on that day. Presumably, it was God’s will for Peter to live another day. Both served God’s greater goals — to die for all and to continue preaching and leading the early church — but in different ways.

We can rest in an assurance that God will bring His will to pass one way or another. Some times we will be rescued like Peter. Sometimes we will not, like James. But, positive or negative outcomes, God’s desires will be done.

That was the question the Jewish followers of Jesus back in Judea asked Peter about visiting and eating with the Gentile Cornelius and his household. This sort of thing was not done. God’s people are Jewish not Gentile, or so they thought. Why would Peter of all people extend table fellowship to uncircumcised and therefore unclean Gentiles?

So Peter tells them his story. I am amazed at how it ends.

“As I [Peter] began to speak, the holy spirit fell on them, just as the spirit did on us at the beginning. And I remembered the word which the Lord had spoken: ‘John baptized with water, but you will be baptized with the holy spirit.’ “So, then,” Peter concluded, “if God gave them the same gift as he gave to us when we believed in the Lord Jesus the Messiah, who was I to stand in the way of God?” When they [the Judean brothers and sisters] heard this, they had nothing more to say. They praised God. (11:15-18)

It sounds so easy. Everything was so clear-cut for them all: We Jews had this experience. Then those Gentiles did too. So that confirms God’s will here. Nothing more to say. Praise God for His generous grace!

When Christians today argue with each other over who is acceptable to God or not, I am afraid it is rarely that easy to resolve. Each side has a whole litany of reasons why there is “more to say.”

It seems to me that the best way to explain why consensus was so easily attainable in this passage is that the “baptism of the Holy Spirit” mentioned here in Acts 11 was manifested as speaking in tongues. It did say in 10:46 that Cornelius’ family spoke in tongues after the Holy Spirit “fell on everyone.” Therefore, this phenomenon was immediately observable and objective. They must have been thinking: We received this. They received this. That is how God works. So, there is nothing more to say.

I am afraid it just isn’t that easy today. How I wish it could be. For many of us the tradition we come from does not believe speaking in tongues is still a common experience at salvation (or that it ever happens anymore). Maybe we could point to the fruit of the Spirit in a person’s life as a testimony to divine election and approval, but that is not completely visible, it takes a long time to develop, and even non-Christians are observably and objectively patient and gentle many times.

What I really want to say is maybe we just need to stop worrying about who is accepted by God and not. Most of those debates involve groups of people who both claim to have faith in Jesus. Maybe we should focus our attention on other matters, like those who don’t believe at all. But there will always be people amongst us who would say like Peter did, “I can’t do that. I have never done that before. I don’t think that is right.” And for those people these debates are very real and important. I just wish the way to resolution could be as easy as what we are seeing here.

Go to a group of Gentiles? Eat with them? Even baptize them? No, this is not Peter’s plan, at all.

But it was God’s.

All throughout this chapter God through His Holy Spirit is leading the way:

Long before Peter came along, Cornelius and his household had developed a reverence for God and a life of prayer and giving (10:2)

The messengers from Cornelius’ household were sent by God to Peter, not vice versa (10:5-6, 20)

God brought Peter the vision of the sheet and animals

The Spirit coaxes Peter along: “It’s all right; get up, go down, and go with them. Don’t be prejudiced.” (10:20)

Peter says his change of perspective came because “God showed me I should call nobody ‘common’ or ‘unclean.“” (10:28)

Out of the ordinary pattern we see in Acts, the Holy Spirit fell on the household before they were baptized (10:44-48), which is best understood as God showing proactively that these Gentiles were acceptable and baptism should be extended by a reticent Peter

As one of you said in a recent comment, this book is more about the acts of the Holy Spirit than the “acts of the Apostles.” And yet, it is the acts of the Apostles too, in that they are the vehicles of God’s gospel and grace in a partnership between God and humanity. They have to obey and go. Still, this is God’s mission to rescue a lost world. Like Peter, too often we wouldn’t choose to go where God sends. We wouldn’t reach out to the people He chooses. Leave it to God to broaden our horizons!

May we find the places in life where God has already been working. May we set out to simply play the part that is needed next.

This is a very familiar chapter for many of us, I am sure. Today, we see Saul turn to Paul, the hated hunter of Christians turn to a hunted Christian himself. How does that happen? By nothing less than a vision of the very presence of the resurrected Jesus himself.

What struck me in this chapter were the many words that all pertain to eyes and seeing. The word “see” is used six times (9:7, 8, 9, 12, 17, 18). The past tense “seen” or “saw” is used three more times (9:12, 27, 35). Paul doesn’t just hear a voice, he has a “vision” (9:10, 12). Paul’s eyes are mentioned twice (9:8, 18). Interestingly, even in the Peter and Dorcas story that follows Paul’s conversion, her eyes are mentioned (9:40), as are the words “weeping” and “showed” (9:39), both words connected with vision and eyes. Ananias is told to “look” at Paul praying (9:17). Three other vision related words show up here: “appeared” (9:17), “demonstrating” (9:22), and “watching” (9:24).

Of course, this is simply because this chapter is in part about Paul being blinded. But it also seems the author is trying to make a larger point. Saul the Pharisee was a very learned man. He had an almost unparalleled passion and commitment. He was willing to kill or be killed for his beliefs. Surely, amongst his Jewish religious leader friends he was respected. Why else were they laying their coats at his feet when they stoned Stephen (7:58)? Why else was he a ringleader (9:1-2)?

And yet he was blind. The physical blinding of Saul only paralleled the spiritual blindness he had in his heart.

By the end of the chapter, vision is restored to Saul’s physical eyes, but the scales fall off of his heart too and a new man is born — Paul. And this new man gives the enlightened cry of a person who can see correctly:

That very day a great persecution was started against the church in Jerusalem. Everyone except the apostles was scattered through the lands of Judaea and Samaria. . . . Those who were scattered went all over the place announcing the word. (8:1, 4)

One way or another God is going to spread his Kingdom. That was what He wanted (1:8) and here it is happening.

Were the disciples not spreading out as desired? Were they, like we often are today, more comfortable staying where they were, with people like them, in familiar territory? Did God use — or even bring, if your theology and this situation allows that idea — this persecution to advance His kingdom? This is a speculative conclusion; we can’t know for sure.

What is clear is that His kingdom grew one way or another. God’s people talk about God wherever they go.

What unpleasant time in your life right now might God be using to advance His Kingdom?

Stephen amazes me. Bloodthirsty men grab him. The Sanhedrin is no guarantee of justice. These proceedings can be every bit the Kangaroo Court they were with Jesus. Yet, Stephen is firmly resolute. He says what has to be said (v.51), knowing this will only sign his own death warrant.

How can he be this bold, this obedient?

We find the answer in verse 55:

“He, however, was filled with the holy spirit.”

“Being filled” is a major idea in Acts. Nine times some significant character is said to be filled with the Spirit (the apostles at Pentecost, 2:4; Peter, 4:8; the believers that received Peter and John after they were rescued from prison, 4:31; the seven deacons, 6:3; Stephen, 6:5 and 7:55; the blind Saul, 9:17; Saul turned Paul, 13:9; and the disciples in Pisidian Antioch, 13:52). To be filled with the Holy Spirit seems to mean having a deep connection to the Holy Spirit, open to the work of the Spirit, known for possessing the fruit of the Spirit, especially joy and faith. As this Spirit is the Spirit of Christ (Romans 8:9) we should expect that a person who is filled with the Holy Spirit will be much like Jesus.

This point is brought home in a special way in the story of the stoning of Stephen. Stephen is being pelted by rocks. Death is drawing closer, and Stephen says two things:

“Lord Jesus,” he cried out, “receive my spirit.” (7:59b)

“Lord, don’t let this sin stand against them.” (7:60b)

Sound familiar? That’s right. These are two of the seven things Jesus said while on the cross. Stephen is truly a man like Jesus, filled with the Savior’s very Spirit.

Five times in Acts, though, we read of other options for “filling.” Ananias’ heart was filled with “Satan” (5:3). The high priest and Sadducees who arrest the apostles for preaching in Jerusalem were “filled with jealousy” (5:17). Bitterness filled the heart of Simon the Sorcerer (8:23). Elymas the sorcerer from Cyprus was “full of all kinds of deceit and trickery” (13:10). Seeing the success of Paul and Barnabas, the Jews in Pisidian Antioch were “filled with jealousy” (13:45).